'Right now, the president's got the upper hand'

Sen. John Kerry defends Dem decision not to force a filibuster on the energy bill

Posted by David Roberts at 5:43 PM on 13 Dec 2007

Read more about: politics | legislation | energy

I took part this evening in a short conference call with Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and a few other bloggers. It got a bit heated. He passionately defended the Senate's accomplishments and urged critics to acknowledge the difficult position Congress is in at the moment, with the omnibus budget bill approaching.

First, I asked him the question on everyone's mind: Why not actually make the Republicans filibuster? Bill after bill keeps failing because it can't get to 60 votes for cloture, but Republicans never have to take a public stand behind their obstructionism.

Kerry responded with clear frustration (it obviously wasn't the first time he'd been asked). He mentioned that the Senate had filibustered in July, only to have everybody write "about how silly it was that the Senate was going through that exercise." With only 13 days left in the session, and no budget passed, there was real danger of a filibuster burning up the remaining time, no budget passing, and the U.S. government shutting down. "We lose on that one, trust me," he said, "Newt Gingrich played that hand, and look what happened." Right now, he said, the president has the upper hand. If the budget gets held up, it will be "'the troops don't have the money in Iraq', and so forth -- we've been down that road before."

He predicted that when the Senate returns in January, "that's a different issue ... I don't think you're going to find any patience at all when we get back here," he said, "but at this particular moment, there's just too much hanging in the balance to take out that kind of time and wind up with nothing done." Whatever is left outstanding, "whether it's the energy bill or otherwise, we're going to come back here and pound away on it."

Julia Bovey of NRDC asked about plans apparently afoot to move the massive nuclear subsidies from the energy bill to the budget bill. "It seems like we could have gotten a better bill from Republicans!" she fumed. What were Dems going to do about it? That's what set Kerry off:

We'll try and strip it out as soon as we have an opportunity to. That's the unfortunate thing about the budget structure today: When you only have 51 votes, you're left in a position where you have to negotiate. And you don't even have 51 on some of these issues.

I know everybody in the country sits there and says, "why don't you do this, you won control of the Congress?" The simple answer is, we don't have 51 votes on most of these issues. ... Everybody seems to just walk over this idea. It confounds me at times, to be honest with you. We've got people who ... have to get elected in what are essentially Republican states. And sometimes they're not with us on some of the things you think are the natural priorities of the Democratic Party. It's just the way it is. Let alone the 51 votes -- you've got to get 60 to pass something because somebody can do a filibuster, and then you've got to get 67 votes to override the veto of the president!

That's why 2008 is so important. People need to go back and do basic political science here and recognize that you've got to win some of these votes.

He cited all the things Dems have been able to accomplish -- "more people who have been helped, more money for education, more money for Pell grants, more money for transportation, more money for housing ... run the list of the things that we've been able to do over the objection of Republicans" -- and stressed again that though he and many others were frustrated, there's just nothing to be done without more votes.

He also pointedly refused to say anything cross about the Democratic leadership. He said they're working under difficult conditions and doing the best they can.

I certainly can see Kerry's point about the political odds being stacked against them at this particular moment. They can't just filibuster; it would likely spiral into a major budget crisis and a government shutdown. Maybe that would play out differently than it did when Gingrich did it -- after all, Clinton was popular and Bush isn't; Gingrich was seen as a petty boor, but the majority is solidly behind ending the war and boosting renewable energy -- but it's a huge, huge gamble, and if they lost it could imperil their chances in 2008.

Ultimately it will come down to what happens when they come back in January. Kerry didn't come out and say it for sure, but the clear implication was that there will be much more appetite for a filibuster fight at that point. If they bring the tax package and the RPS back in a separate bill and fight like hell for it, I'm guessing all will be forgiven.

(Here's Adam Siegel's post on the call.)

For story: 'Right now, the president's got the upper hand'
22 Comments | Post a Comment

Massive nuclear subsidies

Julia Bovey of NRDC asked about plans apparently afoot to move the massive nuclear subsidies from the energy bill to the budget bill. "We could have gotten a better bill from Republicans!" she fumed. What were Dems going to do about it? That's what set Kerry off:
We'll try and strip it out as soon as we have an opportunity to. That's the unfortunate thing about the budget structure today:

When you only have 51 votes, you're left in a position where you have to negotiate.

I'm with you Julia! Lets eliminate that huge half billion or so of pork and make nuclear power stand or fall on its own merits.

While were at it lets give back the $5 billion in taxes collected by local state and federal government agencies on the sale of nuclear power.

And nuclear power is one of our cheapest sources of electricity.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/epat8p2.html ...

So lets add one cent / kWh of nuclear power sold, to be used for nuclear power R&D and to back loan guarantees in support of new nuclear plants construction.

That would be $7.9 billion / year.

P.S. Don't try this approach with so called "renewables", the cash flow would be pitiful.

Things Everybody Should Know About Energy

by BILL HANNAHAN at 6:28 PM on 13 Dec 2007

Tell Kerry and D's to get a spine

Next time you have a friendly teleconfernce with Kerry, you should have Glenn Greenwald on the line to buck you up - check out his column today:

Democrats show Beltway "strength," avoid being depicted as weak
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/

And for a more politically nuanced analysis of the Dem's cyncial adn manipualtive stategy that is so widely perceived adn condemned as weak, read :thereisnospoon" blog post on dailykos:

Get It Straight: The Dems DO Know What They're Doing
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/12/13/3559/2099/57 ...

by bill wolfe at 6:41 PM on 13 Dec 2007

There is always the next session

I did not think anything positive would come out of Congress, but I let my hope get the best of me for a second or two. I did think the way the democrats caved was embarrassing, but they did put up a fight with only a bare majority in the Senate and a hostile president.

Considering the present political environment the bill is the best in substantive work to be hoped for. It could be an important victory later down the road. The democrats did fold, but only after matching the republicans obstruction with some brinkmanship. By showing some backbone when the democrats are still weak, they are sending a message about what will happen later when they are in a strong position.

by josullivan58 at 6:48 PM on 13 Dec 2007

Dumb question...

Couldn't the Democrats shut down Congress by just saying to the Republicans... you have a choice... allow us to pass some of the legislation that polls clearly indicate the American people want or nothing -- absolutely NOTHING -- will move out of commitee? The Democrats would, of course, have to have the courage to hold press conferences clearly explaining what Republicans are preventing them from doing. What's the point of ensuring a Democrat gets elected in a given district if they never stand up for legislation they believe in?!

by wiscidea at 7:19 PM on 13 Dec 2007

Follow-up...

wiscidea wrote...

"What's the point of ensuring a Democrat gets elected in a given district if they never stand up for legislation they believe in?!"

For example, they could end the war in Iraq by simply not including it in any budget. End of story. The President can't propose legislation. The Senate can't propose legislation. Everything passes through a House committee, I think.

Hey Democrats!!! Time to do what the people asked for or get out of the way and let another Democrat take your place in 2008... or whenever you are up for re-election! Why aren't Democrats running against incumbents -- there ARE primaries, even when there is a popular incumbent -- who aren't t doing their job. Time to say to sitting politicians, you're job is not secure. I would really like to see some Greens join the Democratic Party and run against the spineless vermin currently sitting in Washington. Hey Greens... take back the Democratic Party for the American people!

by wiscidea at 7:26 PM on 13 Dec 2007

The good guys ...

are those who want "massive nuclear subsidies", so to speak. Each new reactor will need about $40 million worth of uranium per year, but if government blocks them, natural gas will be burned instead: about $650 million worth of it per plant per year.

If government guarantees the loans, the billions in natural gas revenue it might win by derailing the new nuclear construction projects will be cancelled by its having to pay off the loans. If it doesn't derail them, its having guaranteed the loans costs it nothing.

The New Mexico pipeline disaster suggests government SHOULD NOT block nuclear, but if it can't profit by doing so, that moral consideration will have more weight.

--- G.R.L. Cowan, hydrogen-to-boron convert
How shall the car gain nuclear cachet?
http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/boron_blast.html

by GRLCowan at 7:46 PM on 13 Dec 2007

Ask Newt about this strategy.

Impatient people have short minds. Maybe we should ask Newt Gingrich how well the "shut down the government" strategy worked. In the long run, it was a very big mistake. The Congress looked bad and Clinton could complain.

Maybe Kerry is right.

It is the one strategy that could do the impossible... make Bush look Presidential.

Wes Rolley CoChair - EcoAction Committee Green Party US

by wesrolley at 7:51 PM on 13 Dec 2007

Yeah,

All this talk about Dems "standing up" and showing "backbone" is a bit ... fuzzy. It's not like if they just held their breath and stomped the floor they could magically force the bill through. They didn't have the votes to get cloture. That left them one option: a filibuster. The procedural stuff around this is arcane and I don't fully understand it, but my understanding is that to sustain an actual filibuster, like you see in the movies, where Senators camp out on the floor and debate for hours, the Dems would need a majority (51 heads) in D.C., for repeated votes. That means Clinton, Obama, Dodd, and Biden would all have to stay in D.C. rather than campaign in Iowa. It also means, in all likelihood, that no budget bill would get passed by the end of the year, and the federal government would shut down.

Now, they could have done that. But it would be all out war, a really huge, huge deal, and there's a very good chance that they would have come out of it looking bad -- and making Bush look presidential. Maybe so, maybe not, but would you bet your political future on it? It quite possibly could have lost them some seats in 2008, which is when most of the stuff people really want actually has a chance of passing.

Anyway, it's a little bit more complicated than "try harder." The thermonuclear war option was the only option on the table, and we shouldn't underestimate the risk it would have involved.

grist.org

by David Roberts at 8:23 PM on 13 Dec 2007

Hey, can I get a loan guarantee for my retirement?

I promise to pay it back in 50 years' time.

These are only my personal opinions.

by Ron Steenblik at 8:33 PM on 13 Dec 2007

I was misunderstood!

Although I will admit I have been known to come off a little more abrasive than intended occasionally, I really think Senator Kerry misunderstood my tone. I assumed he would share my outrage at the nuclear loan guarantees. And frankly, I bet he really does. To see where I was coming from: http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/jbovey

by JuliaBovey at 8:38 PM on 13 Dec 2007

Possibilities

As much as I hate to say it, Kerry is almost right. As long as the Democrats are wedded to the current system, they can't beat the Republican Minority and President Bush.

But notice, when the Democrats where in the minority, they weren't willing to force the Republicans to give them what they wanted by threatening to filibuster.

Oops!!! Why not??

That is the real problem. The right is willing to fight for what it wants, but the center-right mainly wants power, so is not willing to take any risks.

Alas, this not only makes people angry, it allows the right to go home and chest thump to their constituents, and may actually harm the Democrats chances of making gains.

This is why they always lose the "toughness" battle.

The other problem the Democrats have is that they don't push their members to be more supportive of the majority. The Rethuglicans had no qualms about threatening members who don't tow the line. The Democrats have nothing but qualms.

And it is tough to negotiate when the other side knows you will always give in.

patrick in Beijing

by bookerly at 9:25 PM on 13 Dec 2007

Shutting down the government -- Clinton vs. Bush

The situation is a bit different now than it was when Gingrich shut down the government. In late 1995 and early 1996, Bill Clinton's approval rating was about 55 percent*. These days, the American public hates George W. Bush. His approval rating has around mid-30 percent for almost two years, after a long, nearly continuous decline. The percent of people that strongly dislike him is probably near Nixonian levels. They aren't going to change their opinion because he issues a few vetoes.

But it's hard to know what the public will think about the government shutting down because the GOP is filibustering everything and the president's idea of compromise is "give me everything I want."

(Bush and Clinton approval numbers from WSJ)

*which is actually lower than it was on the day he was impeached (about 65 percent in that period)

by meander at 10:39 PM on 13 Dec 2007

"filibuster"; game-playing

Any group of Senators can hold the floor and continue to raise objections to a proposed bill (i.e., to filibuster), so long as there are not as many as three-fifths of the members of the Senate (i.e. 60 in a chamber of 100 seats) to vote for ending discussion and moving to vote.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster

In a time when the great majority of Senators vote strictly on partisan lines, such as the present, and when Senators in the majority amount to more than 50 but fewer than 60, also such as the present, filibustering is the tactical option of the minority party.

So in this case, it is the Republicans who would hypothetically be pressed to filibuster a bill not to the liking of the GOP leadership and the White House, and it is the Democrats who would try, and certainly fail, to assemble 60 votes to force cloture and end discussion. The four Democratic Senators would have to be recalled from the campaign trail, only if there were going to be a vote on cloture, it was perceived that cloture was not impossible, but the presence of every Democrat was required -- highly unlikely.

That distinction was clear enough in the first sentence of the second paragraph of DR's post, but seems to have got a bit muddled subsequently.

There are some politico-ethicist types who consider it unethical for a majority party to spend time bringing legislation along through the process a certain distance, when it is evident that it will never become law, whether because of opponents' filibustering or because of the president's veto. I am not among those types: it is a good thing for the republic when the opponents are forced to declare the nature and degree of their opposition.

In this case, though, we should allow that Senator Kerry and the Democratic leadership have hypothetically played out in their chambers all the end-games of the chess board as it stands right now, and, shamelessly switching game-metaphors, have decided that the best way to play the hand that has been dealt them is as Kerry described to DR & Co.

We should note that although the Democratic-majority Congress is right now enjoying very low approval ratings, that is because of a perfect storm situation: the number of the basically anti-Democratic pro-Republican respondents, who will always say they disapprove of the Democratic majority on principle, is swelled by the number of basically pro-Democratic anti-Republican respondents, of activist disposition, who are disappointed that Congressional Democrats have made so little headway with their majority. The latter group are certainly not going to vote for Republicans in November, and probably for the most part can be counted on to continue to vote for Democrats, in spite of their current disappointment.

That said, it is misleading to characterize the present situation as, "Right now, the president's got the upper hand." Meander is right to observe that W's own abysmal approval ratings makes this situation quite different from when Newt Gingrich played Chicken with Bill Clinton, and lost. (Another game!) The Republicans' strongest card (back to cards!) is the danger that Democrats might seem to be unwilling not to "support the troops."

Hopefully, the Democrats will be able to fling a dart into the center (ha!, a bloodsport!) of the Democratic base's ignorant charge of weakness, and reassure them that the mallet they are swinging will surely get the ball through the hoop, or even get to perform a roquet on a Republican ball. (OK, OK, that's it.)

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

by caniscandida at 1:50 AM on 14 Dec 2007

Well played, caniscandida.

As usual, a great (and encapsulating) post.

Although, I will say, I am disgusted that campaigning on one day is more important than showing up for work and voting a positive bill into law (potentially).

NoPunProductions.com ~ AmericaTheGreen.org

by Greta at 8:12 AM on 14 Dec 2007

Its about time the federal government shuts down

The inability of the Democrats to stand up to the Republicans is appalling to me. This is not about backbone, its about survival. If there is one issue that the Dems should filibuster, this is it. If shutting down the government turns out to be the only way to pressure republicans to vote for this bill, then they should be more than ready to do it. What the democrats really need is good PR, to tell the American people the reasons that the federal government is shutting down, why our climate has been heating up unrestrained, and why the war keeps on raging on.

I am so tired of petty politics. This week has deeply radicalized me, between the utter failures at Bali and in the Senate, I am losing faith in our political system. Our current system is a game of patience, and under normal circumstances, I would be happy to work within it and mediate. Unfortunately patience is just another thing that our atmosphere is running out of. If we don't radically change the way we use energy within the next few years the whole world will pay for the inability of the democrats to shake things up for something they supposedly believe in.

Focus the Nation on January 31st 2008

by tboggia at 11:55 AM on 14 Dec 2007
[ Parent ]

reality

There is nothing that could be passed with this congress or president that would be that much of an aid to lowering fossil fuel usage.

The real possibilities are with the next president and the next congress. We just have to ready then.

by trock at 2:40 PM on 14 Dec 2007

We are on the same side

The democrats had a weak hand and played it as strong as they could. They sent a message to the republicans in congress and the president that they are going to aggressively push the pro-environmental agenda.

Things are going slow in the congress and nowhere with the president, but that will change in 2008. Lots of progress is being made in the federal courts which is a big deal because these rulings sidestep the obstructionist republicans.

Julia Bovey's post on NRDC Switchboard brings up a really important thing to remember: the democratic politicians and environmentalists are on the same aide. Lets not hurt our efforts by fighting with our allies.

by josullivan58 at 2:50 PM on 14 Dec 2007

Thanks Loser

So the dude who lost an election against the worst president in US history says not to filibuster. Maybe in bizarro world that kind of approach works, but wake up this isn't friggin kindergarten anymore.

The difference is that Newt was on the wrong side of the issues. It makes you wonder if the Senatorial Dems actually believe in the legislation or not. It's easier to abandon if you don't.

Make those old crooked Republican farts put on some gdamned Depends (not the lite version they normally wear) and read the f-ing phone book. Put on the full-court media press. Show some gdamned backbone.

by Mantelope at 12:44 AM on 15 Dec 2007

Constitutional Convention

The country is in desperate need of a Constitutional Convention and I would like to see Grist establish a "running open" forum on this issue.
Many so-called democrats (who call themselves centrists) are republicans in democratic clothing and do not represent the traditional values (FDR) of the democratic party ..... they are not advocates for the common man.

They are "plants" financed by the corporations. By supporting willing candidates from both parties, they are hedging their bets and the people are betrayed.
The interests of the corporations at this time, when corporations see themselves not as americans but as international businesses, are de facto counter to the interests of american workers.
You can recognize these democratic plants by the large amount of funds they receive by the mega corporations.
They should be shamed and expunged from the democratic party. Since they are republicans, they should run as such.
They are traitors to the democratic party and the american people.

"We Have Found the Enemy and It Is Us" ... Pogo

by rrecroc at 8:29 PM on 15 Dec 2007

Democrats' "Plan B"

Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne: The Democrats need to place blame for the gridlock where it belongs, on the White House and the Republican minority.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007 ...

Chickens deserve our true friendship! So do fish! So do other sentient beings! Let us learn to be kind.

by caniscandida at 1:35 AM on 16 Dec 2007

its the people, not corpartions of business

The problem with politics today is not as much that there is corporate and business money in politics, but that there is not enough `common person' money in it.

Some people blame the problems with Florida's election in 2000 as the reason Bush became president instead of Al Gore. But a larger factor was that Bush got 190 million dollars in campaign money from his supporters and Gore got 130 million, 60 million less.

If all the adults in my state decided to give 1000 dollars a person to presidential candidates, my state would decide who becomes president.

It's not that businesses invest to much, but that other people don't invest enough.

What are we willing to do if we think that the planet is in trouble of being a hot planet for our children and grandchildren? Have we done enough?

by trock at 5:53 AM on 16 Dec 2007

correction

Truthfully the title was meant to be corporations or business. Although 'Corpartions of business' would have been more interesting if I could have figured out what that is.

by trock at 5:57 AM on 16 Dec 2007

ADVERTISING POLICY

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.